Headlines

Live Science

Confirmed: Nuclear bombs could save Earth from asteroids

Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory, a United States Department of Energy facility in New Mexico, used a supercomputer to model nukes’ anti-asteroid effectiveness. They attacked a 1,650-foot-long (500-meter) space rock with a 1-megaton nuclear weapon — about 50 times more powerful than the U.S. blast inflicted on Nagasaki, Japan, to help end World War II.

The results were encouraging.

“Ultimately this 1-megaton blast will disrupt all of the rocks in the rockpile of this asteroid, and if this were an Earth-crossing asteroid, would fully mitigate the hazard represented by the initial asteroid itself,” Los Alamos scientist Bob Weaver said in a recent video released by the lab.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Why a 1MT? Why not something that would actually have a serious impact? 30MT or 50MT? Why not 10 50MT?

SWalker on March 13, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Getting there faster is more important than getting there bigger. I doubt we have on hand any 30MT bombs. Also, a bigger bomb will take longer to build the necessary launch vehicle, and for any launch vehicle a smaller bomb will get there sooner.

Getting there faster is more important than getting there bigger. I doubt we have on hand any 30MT bombs. Also, a bigger bomb will take longer to build the necessary launch vehicle, and for any launch vehicle a smaller bomb will get there sooner.

pedestrian on March 13, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Not the case, higher yield does not translate to significantly larger physical size. Nor does it translate to longer build time. The amount of fissile material required to increase yield is not a linear function of mass. Yield increases on a logarithmic scale to mass. If 1Kg of fissile material produces 1MT of yield, 2Kg produces not 2MT but 10MT.

It would take a lot more than a few extra million to launch a 50 megaton device when you consider the only one ever built was a three-stage, 30-ton monstrosity. An Atlas V could carry it to low-earth orbit, but you’d need a much more powerful launch vehicle to get it where it would need to be to safely destroy the asteroid. Also, the most powerful bomb we have right now is only 1.2 MT and building something bigger would cost a lot more than a few million.

Waiting for Iran to announce this is the reason why it is developing nuke weapons and the missiles to carry them…
“In the Koran it says the Zionists will be sending asteroids from the anti-heavens for the purpose of stoning Iran from space. We must protect ourselves from these alien objects…”

It would take a lot more than a few extra million to launch a 50 megaton device when you consider the only one ever built was a three-stage, 30-ton monstrosity. An Atlas V could carry it to low-earth orbit, but you’d need a much more powerful launch vehicle to get it where it would need to be to safely destroy the asteroid. Also, the most powerful bomb we have right now is only 1.2 MT and building something bigger would cost a lot more than a few million.

Walter Sobchak on March 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Sorry Walter, but that would be wrong. The 30 Ton Russian monstrosity known as the Tsar Bomba weighed in at 30 tons because it was built in 1960 by the Russians. The understanding of why nuclear weapons work, how they work and how yield’s are produced has come an extremely long way since then. And the most powerful yield device we currently have is the Mk-53 and the W53 which both have a yield of 9MT.

Not the case, higher yield does not translate to significantly larger physical size. Nor does it translate to longer build time. The amount of fissile material required to increase yield is not a linear function of mass. Yield increases on a logarithmic scale to mass. If 1Kg of fissile material produces 1MT of yield, 2Kg produces not 2MT but 10MT.

Anyway, I realize I was banned for the angry outburst toward Lanceman. I apologize to the site for that. I respect the site’s bloggers for deleting the worse of his comments before I even complained about it. I didn’t realize they had done so until later.

I’m not trying to bypass the ban by commenting here. I didn’t even realize until after my comment had posted which site I was commenting on, when I saw the favicon.

I suppose the banning process is incomplete somehow, and is different between headlines and the main site. Not sure why that would be so, but it seems to be so.

I fully understand why the site would have taken the action it did. In my defense, 2 things.

1. It wasn’t a threat. It was an angry outburst. I had no intention of doing anything, and still don’t. In fact, ANOTHER commenter also had an angry outburst which itself amounted to implying saying he should die (rhetorically: I’m sure that commenter wasn’t serious either). But what I said was more graphic, and there you go.
2. The site had in fact removed some of that commenters over-the-top comments, including trying to out another commenter’s identity, before I saw the, presumably, less offensive comments that set me off.

So while I absolutely violated site policy, I was not angry without cause.

Good day all, and thanks for the answers, comments, and debates.

Allahpundit and Ed are both fine folks who acted reasonably and aren’t responsible for managing arguments I may choose to get into.

Last comment … one of the site’s “Green Room” bloggers is constantly calling people the most vile names, with profanity, and not just me by any means. There was a general warning to people today and I hope that commenter/blogger takes those warnings to heart, for his sake as well as the site.

It would take a lot more than a few extra million to launch a 50 megaton device when you consider the only one ever built was a three-stage, 30-ton monstrosity. An Atlas V could carry it to low-earth orbit, but you’d need a much more powerful launch vehicle to get it where it would need to be to safely destroy the asteroid. Also, the most powerful bomb we have right now is only 1.2 MT and building something bigger would cost a lot more than a few million.

Walter Sobchak on March 13, 2012 at 7:58 PM

If we don’t have any big’uns left, I’m certain the Russians do. I seriously doubt if they have disassembled any more bombs than it took to fool US inspectors.

9 MT is larger than I would have guessed. I know much larger warheads were built, but I thought more of the larger ones were dismantled.

Random on March 13, 2012 at 8:04 PM

They were, and they weren’t. As Bill Clinton would say, it depends on the meaning of “IS” is. They were dismantled, but the fissile material was recycled into smaller more efficient devices.

We have learned some interesting things about making nuclear devices detonate since they were first created. One of those things is something known as cascade geometry.

Basically it come down to this, neutron cascade takes place at slightly under the speed of light. If the reaction mass is not exactly balanced to the fissile mass the neutron cascade reaches critical mass before the fissile material achieves full neutron cascade saturation. The fissile material as a result has shadow area’s where critical mass isn’t achieved meaning a less than optimal critical mass detonation.

To ensure these devices would work if required, whether in war or planetary defense against asteroids or merely rage virus, I’ve always believed there should be testing of each new class.

But it isn’t so.

Random on March 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM

The characteristic are well enough understood now that they can be tested virtually through computer simulation. For instance, you can take a 9MT Mk-53 and add either 8 grams of Deuterium or 4 grams of Tritium by nearly a factor of 10.

Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory, a United States Department of Energy facility in New Mexico, used a supercomputer to model nukes’ anti-asteroid effectiveness. They attacked a 1,650-foot-long (500-meter) space rock with a 1-megaton nuclear weapon — about 50 times more powerful than the U.S. blast inflicted on Nagasaki, Japan, to help end World War II.

Lets edit it a bit.

Scientists at Pick Your Favorite National Laboratory, a United States Department of Algorian facility in New Mexico, used a supercomputer to model climate changes based on historical data to see if their models could accurately predict the climate of the current time. They failed.

Fusion was only one phase of the reaction, and is integral to a thermonuclear reaction. We also have boosted weapons, where massive quantities of neutrons are introduced just as the reactions begin. Its one way of throttling the yield (dial-a-nuke), or producing more of one effect than another, i.e.; EMP vs blast/heat.

Yup, the Castle Operations devices turned a whole new page on device yield. Castle Romeo (estimated yield, 3MT, Actual yield 11MT) did the same thing as Castle Bravo, a mixture of Lithium-6 and Lithium-7 isotopes,resulting in yields 4 times expected.

We also have boosted weapons, where massive quantities of neutrons are introduced just as the reactions begin. Its one way of throttling the yield (dial-a-nuke), or producing more of one effect than another, i.e.; EMP vs blast/heat.